Remember Nikon Corp.'s (TYO:7731) Android-powered smart cameras like the Coolpix S800c? Well it appears that adding Google Inc.'s (GOOG) free operating system isn't going to be quite so free -- Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has successfully shaken down the Japanese camera maker for a licensing fee.

The patent agreement is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, the company has entered into more than 1,100 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was developed to open access to Microsoft’s significant R&D investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio. Microsoft’s specific patent licensing program for Android device makers has resulted in signed license agreements with numerous companies including Samsung, LG, HTC, Acer and Barnes & Noble.

Nikon Coolpix S800c

The licensing agreement is a cautionary tale to other camera makers. Incorporating a smartphone-like OS into your point and shoot camera may be appealing, but it won't be free -- you'll have to pay the Microsoft tax.

This is the one thing that I love about MS that I hate about Apple. Where apple would view all competition as a terrible thing, and always seeks to shut down or absorb everyone who is not themselves, MS creates avenues to allow other companies to use their IP at a relatively low price point.Granted, the price point could (and arguably should) be lower when talking about a per-device fee, but I would much rather live in a world where if you want to do something interesting you can do it, rather than the apple world where creativity is locked up in a bottle that is never to be touched.

quote: pay licensing fees ranging from $10 to $15 per unit to Microsoft.

First of all, $10-15 per unit is not a low price point. Apple tried to get Samsung to pay a fee when they were creating the Galaxy phone and Samsung received many warnings, internally and from Apple that the phone was too similar. Now you say Microsoft is the good-guy and people are actually agreeing with you? All Nikon did was slap freely available Android onto an already available touchscreen point and shoot.

I do think it is ironic how this article has nothing to do with Apple and yet the top comment tries to drag Apple through the mud.

Apple wouldn't license at all, they would sue to block the Nikon smart cameras from the market entirely. Only to come back a year later with their own smart camera, claim they invented it, and call it magical.

Microsoft's Android Tax is a scumbag policy that stifles innovation and harms consumers. Especially when Microsoft's own smartphone OS has been dead in the water. But, it does not outright block products from coming to market and getting to the customer. Google still needs to take a more active role in combating IP trolls like Microsoft.

quote: Not true, Apple licenses to many companies, Microsoft and HTC being two of them. Samsung refused to pay license fees to Apple, that's why it ended up going to court.

This makes you wonder how high the required fee must have been or how absurd the patent must have been if the same Samsung is willing to pay $10-$15 per android handset to Microsoft. While I don't particularly care for patent trolling in general, I have to assume at this point that either Microsoft's either terms are significantly more reasonable or their patents are significantly less disputable than Apple's. Otherwise, Microsoft would be contested as much as Apple is.

Apple probably works on a per costumer basis, since Samsung is the nr°1 phone maker they probably set the price as high as possible just to make it not worthy for Samsung, had HTC be the nr 1 phone maker they would probably get the same treatment Samsung got, people really shouldn't see the Apple-HTC as an act of goodwill, it's a ploy to make HTC a better competitor against Samsung, as in the enemy of my enemy is my friend... The MS case is a whole different story, no one really knows how many patents MS has on the user interface, protocols and others... Apple doesn't want to know it either, this Android Tax is due to this too, for a manufacturer is probably cheaper to pay this Android tax than face MS in a court.

Strunf "...for a manufacturer is probably cheaper to pay this Android tax than face MS in a court."No, it's cheaper to pay this Android tax than face MS & Apple in court!The MS/crApple cross licensing agreement buys you a lot of protection for many of crApple's similar patents.

quote: This is the one thing that I love about MS that I hate about Apple.

You love Microsoft for taxing something that's free?

quote: MS creates avenues to allow other companies to use their IP at a relatively low price point.

Microsoft's supposed IP all revolves around the ubiquitous FAT, an over a decade old file system layout, one which I might hasten to add has prior art. Specifically, Linus Torvalds described a long/short file name system long before Microsoft patented it.

quote: but I would much rather live in a world where if you want to do something interesting you can do it, rather than the apple world where creativity is locked up in a bottle that is never to be touched.

Except that by slapping the Microsoft tax on other systems, it actually stops smaller startups from using them to innovate. The "Microsoft Tax" is unfortunately spreading everywhere Microsoft feels threatened. First it was OEM's who had to pay a fee to Microsoft even if alternative OS's like GNU/Linux were installed on a PC, now it's Android. Microsoft can't compete with "free", so it has to raise of the price of "free" using dubious patents. That's a clear abuse of the patent system to suppress competition.

F'n A. MS is taxing a device which they themselves never actually invented. They're just relying on a BS patent which they never should have been awarded in the first place.

MS never invented either digital cameras, portable computing devices or touchscreens, but somehow they deserve a patent for combining these already-existing elements? Wow, someone sure deserves a bullet to the back of the head for that leap of logic.

Heck, I say each time a corp makes an extortionist blatant cash-grab move like this we round up the CEO, board of directors and the rest of their top executives and dispose of them one by one by firing squad until they agree to stop acting like a bunch of greedy pricks. To safeguard against the situation where they relent immediately, a minimum requirement of say...ten execs starting from the top down would be a nice even number to be culled from the herd.

quote: MS never invented either digital cameras, portable computing devices or touchscreens, but somehow they deserve a patent for combining these already-existing elements?

No, they don't have a patent for combining these already existing elements. You're confusing Microsoft with Apple. They have what appears to be a patent on a three decade old (guesstimate) piece of technology that happens to be implemented in Android. While the willingness of companies like Samsung to pay Microsoft's fee suggests the patent is more valid than the one's that Samsung is contesting with Apple, I still have to wonder how long a patent can be used to extract money out of the competition.

While the rest of you post seems a little extreme, I do agree that it would be effective. Though, I think I'd rather keep the ones willing to immediately desist and play by the rules than risk another set of blatant extortionist take over in place of the old.

Of course, the real problem is the fact that this kind of abuse is perfectly legal. The patent system need not go away, but stricter definitions for what is considered innovative, increasing fees for repeated submitals, and limitations on both the life of the patent and the length of time between when a product is released and a corresponding lawsuit can be filed would probably help. Better to fix the engine than to tape up the leak.